Daily Bible Readings Wednesday October 8 2008 27th Week in Ordinary Time

October 8 2008 Wednesday 27^th Week in Ordinary Time
Saint of the Day – St. John Leonardi

About the sources used. The readings on this site are not official for the Mass of Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in the USA, but are from sources free from copyright. They are here to present the comparable readings alongside traditional Catholic commentary as published in the Haydock Bible for your own personal study. Readings vary depending on your local calendar.

Official Readings of the Liturgy at – http://www.usccb.org/nab/100808.shtml

Galatians 2:1-2, 7-14
Haydock New Testament

THEN after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, with Barnabad, taking Titus also with me. And I went up according to revelation; and communicated to them the gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart to them who seemed to be something; lest, perhaps, I should run, or had run in vain.

But on the contrary, when they had seen that to be was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision: (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles: ) And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision: Only that we should be mindful of the poor; which same thing also I was careful to do. But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blameable. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not of the Jews, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?

Responsorial Psalm 116:1bc, 2 (Ps 117 NAB/Hebrew)
Douay-Rheims Challoner text Only

O Praise the Lord, all ye nations:
praise him, all ye people.
For his mercy is confirmed upon us:
and the truth of the Lord remaineth for ever.

The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to Saint Luke 11:1-4
Haydock New Testament

AND it came to pass, that as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him:

Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

And he said to them:

When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins: for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.

Haydock Commentary Galatians 2:1-2, 7-14
Notes Copied From Haydock Commentary Site

• Ver. 1. Then fourteen years after. That is, after my former going to Jerusalem, which was seventeen years after my conversion, an. 51.. See Tillemont. Wi. The cause of S. Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem was as follows. Some brethren coming from Judea to Antioch, there maintained the necessity of circumcision and the other Mosaic rites, asserting that without them salvation could not be obtained. S. Paul, upon his return to Antioch, strongly defended, in conjunction with Barnabas, the liberty of the gospel. As the contest grew warm, it was resolved to depute Paul and Barnabas to consult the other apostles and ancients of Jerusalem. By the approbation of the living and speaking tribunal, which all are commanded to hear, the Scriptures are not made true, altered or amended; they merely are declared to be the infallible word of God, a point only to be learned by authority; hence that memorable saying of S. Austin: “I would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the Church moved me.” Cont. ep. fund. c. v.
• Ver. 2. According to revelation, or an inspiration of the Spirit of God, and conferred with them, as an equal, says S. Jerom. — But apart to them, who seemed to be something considerable. That is, with the other apostles, lest I should run in vain, not for fear of false doctrine, says S. Chrys. but that others might be convinced that I preached not nay thing disapproved by the apostles, which would prejudice the progress of the gospel. Wi. — The particle but, which begins this verse, is quite useless: the Latin Vulgate and the Greek copies have it indeed, but in many copies it is not found; it is omitted also by S. Jerom and Theodoret; and this verse is united in sense with the preceding. Titus was not compelled to be circumcised on account of the false brethren, &c.
• Ver. 7. As to Peter was that of the circumcision. Calvin pretends to prove by this, that S. Peter and his successors are not head of the whole Church, because S. Peter was only the apostle of the Jews. But S. Paul speaks not here of the power and jurisdiction, but of the manner that S. Peter and he were to be employed. It was judged proper that S. Peter would preach chiefly to the Jews, who had been the elect people of God, and that S. Paul should be sent to the Gentiles; yet both of them preached both to Jews and Gentiles: and S. Peter, by receiving Cornelius, first opened the gate of salvation to the Gentiles, as he says of himself, (Acts xv. 7.) that God made choice of him, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the gospel, and believe. That S. Peter was head of the Church, see the notes on Matt. xvi. and John xxi. Wi.
• Ver. 9. James, and Cephas, and John. No proof of any greater authority can be drawn from the placing or numbering of James first, which perhaps S. Paul might do, because of the great respect he knew the Jewish converts had for S. James, bishop of Jerusalem, where the ceremonies of the law of Moses were still observed. Several Greek copies have Peter, James, and John. So we also read in S. Jerom’s Commentary, p. 240, and S. Chrys. in his Exposition, p. 729, has Cephas, John, and James. Wi.
• Ver. 11. But when Cephas, &c.[1] In most Greek copies, we read Petrus, both here and v. 13. Nor are there any sufficient, nor even probable grounds to judge, that Cephas here mentioned was different from Peter, the prince of the apostles, as one or two later authors would make us believe. Among those who fancied Cephas different from Peter, not one can be named in the first ages, except Clemens of Alexandria, whose works were rejected as apochryphal by Pope Gelasius. The next author is Dorotheus of Tyre, in his Catalogue of the seventy-two disciples, in the fourth or fifth age, and after him the like, or same catalogue, in the seventh age, in the Chronicle, called of Alexandria, neither of which are of any authority with the learned, so many evident faults and falsehoods being found in both. S. Jerom indeed on this place says, there were some (though he does not think fit to name them) who were of that opinion; but at the same time S. Jerom ridicules and rejects it as groundless. Now as to authors that make Cephas the same with S. Peter, the prince of the apostles, we have what may be called the unexceptionable and unanimous consent of the ancient fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church, as of Tertullian, who calls this management of S. Peter, a fault of conversation, not of preaching or doctrine. Of S. Cyprian, of Origen, of the great doctors, S. Jerom, S. Aug. S. Chrys. S. Greg. the Great, of S. Cyril of Alex. of Theodoret, Pope Gelasius, Pelagius the second, S. Anselm, S. Thomas. In later ages, of Bellarm. Baronius, Binius, Spondan, of Salmeron, Estius, Gagneius, Tirinus, Menochius, Alex. Natalis, and a great many more: so that Cornelius a Lapide on this place says, that the Church neither knows, nor celebrates any other Cephas but S. Peter. Tertullian and most interpreters take notice, that S. Peter’s fault was only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not S. Paul on several occasions do the like, as what is here laid to S. Peter’s charge? that is, practise the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, an. 52? did he not shave his head in Cenchrea, an. 54? did he not by the advice of S. James (an. 58.) purify himself with the Jews in the temple, not to offend them? S. Jerom, and also S. Chrys.[2] give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this to have been done by a contrivance and a collusion betwixt these two apostles, who had agreed beforehand that S. Peter should let himself be reprehended by S. Paul, (for this they take to be signified by the Greek text) and not that S. Peter was reprehensible;[3] so that the Jews seeing S. Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself, might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But S. Aug. vigorously opposed this exposition of S. Jerom, as less consistent with a Christian and apostolical sincerity, and with the text in this chapter, where it is called a dissimulation, and that Cephas or Peter walked not uprightly to the truth of the gospel. After a long dispute betwixt these two doctors, S. Jerom seems to have retracted his opinion, and the opinion of S. Aug. is commonly followed, that S. Peter was guilty of a venial fault of imprudence. In the mean time, no Catholic denies but that the head of the Church may be guilty even of great sins. What we have to admire, is the humility of S. Peter on this occasion, as S. Cyprian observes,[4] who took the reprehension so mildly, without alleging the primacy, which our Lord had given him. Baronius held that S. Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offence to the Jewish converts; but if we examine the fact, he can scarce be excused from a venial indiscretion. Wi. — I withstood, &c. The fault that is here noted in the conduct of S. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts: but this in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was S. Paul’s reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for is such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior. Ch.

Haydock Commentary Luke 11:1-4

• Ver. 2. Father, hallowed be thy name, &c. See Matt. vi. In the ordinary Greek copies here are all the seven petitions, as in S. Matthew: and so they are in the Prot. Testament. Yet S. Aug. in his Enchiridion, (c. i. tom. 6, p. 240,) says there were read seven petitions in S. Matt. and only five in S. Luke. We may also take notice, that though in the Greek copies here in S. Luke are all seven petitions of the Lord’s prayer, yet the doxology, for thine is the kingdom, &c. is omitted in all Greek copies, and by the Protestants; which is a new argument and proof, that the said doxology is an addition from the Greek liturgy. Wi.
• Ver. 3. In the Greek it is called epiousion; i.e. supersubstantial. This is not the bread that goeth into the body, but the bread of eternal life, that supports the life of the soul. It is here called daily bread. Receive then daily, what will daily profit you; and continue so to live, that you may be daily in proper dispositions for receiving it. All who are under sin, have received a wound, and must seek for a cure. The cure is this heavenly and most venerable sacrament. S. Austin, Serm. ii. de verbo Dei.
• Ver. 4. Christ does not teach us to pray for afflictions of the body, but always enjoins us to pray, that we may not enter into temptation. When, therefore, temptation attacks us, we must beg of God grace to withstand it, that the promise in S. Matthew (chap. x.) may be fulfilled in us, he who perseveres to the end shall be saved. S. Bede in Reg. Brev. 221.